OK, fine. But they are also an ad network, which absolutely acts as a publisher. I think they should be liable for the revenue they bring in from knowingly fraudulent ads.
Legal definitions can should change in order to keep up with society and technology.
No where does it say they know which ads are fraudulent and continue that particular ad.
It’s nuts how many people simply don’t read or think.
Walmart can say, for example, they know they’ll lose 3B to theft. That doesn’t mean they are wanting it, or allowing it, or know exactly which item will be stolen when and where. It means, given their scale, and from evidence they gather after the fact, this is an estimate of what happens when they have so many locations.
Now go read carefully, and don’t make stuff up about what you read, and think about the facts presented.
Depending on use case, would start with just solid HTTP APIs, then a simple CLI to consume them, then add MCP using the new spec. Build slowly only adding new access protocols as needed.
Be surprised how far apps can get with just solid & well documented APIs. Modern agents are smart!
Give Ardia a try, its the closest I've seen to get an Arc like experience from a fully open source browser. Some small bugs still but development is very active and fixes are coming rapidly.
The tab management in Vivaldi is far superior to chrome. The number of options can be overwhelming, but once you get it the way you like it you'll never want to leave. Definitely give it a try.
This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus.
The problem is in the rewards, but it's more how they average across domains and contexts, so AI misapplies them. Actually, in human preference evaluations, most of Gen Z in particular extremely adverse to the common look of AI images.
So it's not the annotators involved in RLHF, it's the models failing to map to human preferences at the task level. The failure rate is also uneven across domains.
Where there are challenges with human annotation, it's not the ability to gauge what's good but rather how to correct what's wrong. Most people can tell when something is off but struggle to articulate why. That's where more domain expertise is required.
>This is not true. Think of the problems AI has with creating appetizing food imagery, for example. Images that every human annotator marks as unappealing with a high degree of consensus.
I think the way they'll solve it in the end is to create an ultra-high-fidelity simulation of the world including modelling taste and other senses on the level of physics, and then incorporate all of this into the training rewards.
I think this is how the machines know what tasty wheat tasted like.
I agree with this, but I can’t help but reflect on how we poisoned our own well by destroying the human internet before AI.
The answers to almost every search are already out there, but we made the public internet so toxic and user hostile, you now need a whole new layer of AI to sift through the bullshit, ads, and clickbait.
I don’t think for a second that AI will not go the same hellish direction.
Of course it will go the same direction - many of the leaders in the AI space are the very same entities either technologically or financially that are responsible for that destruction.
So here's what I don't get: The United States is the world's largest consumer market. From what I can find, personal consumption expenditures (PCE) account for about two-thirds to 70% of total US economic output. We live and die on consumer spending and confidence.
So next we automate the bejeebus out of this economy with AI robots and Elon believes it grows 3x in under five years. Splendid. But if a consumer-driven economy has no payrolls, it eventually has no buyers. It just seems to me that ultimately, billionaires and investors cannot decouple themselves from the masses... but maybe it's a game of get mine before the system collapses?
Today, around 50% of US consumer spending is by the top 10% of wealthiest households. (per Moody's)
The end state of this looks like how humanity looked before the industrial revolution: A single-digit percent of the population has the vast majority of the wealth and virtually all real estate and luxury goods. Between 90% and 95% of the population has just enough to live on, and never enough to build generational wealth or have any class mobility.
I think those in poverty have an awful lot less ways to supplement bought food these days, they are largely legislated out of foraging in any meaningful way. So I think actually a large percentage will starve to death or be in prison.
People will take food without paying for it before dying. You don’t have to forage when you can loot grocery stores. At a point when a large percentage are going to die and the food is there, it will be bedlam and the police won’t be stopping it because their families will be part of the riot.
The notion that people will simply roll over and literally die for profit margins is absurd. The system will break and be rebuilt in that situation.
It wouldn't actually cost that much money to feed everyone in the world. Global hunger could be wiped out today. More likely everyone will get just enough food, but luxury foods like meat (especially beef) and premium items will be uncommon. Like pre-industrial diets.
The "preppers" are some of the worst too. They'll be shooting people before that week is even done. Meanwhile their absurd "stash" only actually pencils out to about a month of supplies, then they also starve because they never seemed to notice that you have to start farming at some point, and therefore, have to be friendly and supportive with your neighbors instead of shooting them at the first sign of trouble.
The system never has to rebuild. Stable points aren't always at global inflection points. Feudalism can go back to reigning for the rest of human existence.
> People will take food without paying for it before dying.
Yeah, I don't know why people seem to not understand this.
There are so many guns in America.
If the shit really hits the fan economically and a significant amount of people can't legally afford to buy their next 3 meals, there is likely to be a lot of excess deaths, but many of them will not be from starvation.
Food banks. Church pantries. Welfare programs. Meals with family and friends. Eat way less meat. Get hardcore into meal prep. https://traumbooks.itch.io/the-sad-bastard-cookbook. People will find ways to eat as long as there isn't an active warzone.
I'm much more worried about what housing looks like in the future.
Food banks depend on the largesse of the people that can afford to buy food though, which, well... if the only people remaining in that group are the ones gleefully saying how they're going to create a permanent underclass...
I've done social-work–adjacent stuff and I know a lot of NGOs in my country are quite strained (of course, probably housing more than food, so I don't disagree that might be more of a concern). I imagine it wouldn't be too different in America.
No, there are laws against distributing food without a permit because (1) there are people who give poisoned food to homeless people and (2) there are rules about food safety.
If billionaires have all the money then there's nothing stopping them from buying all the stuff the economy can produce and leaving the rest of the population to barely get by or starve. Certainly, higher income people might currently spend less than their share of total income (at least between 2017 and 2021, see BLS paper, Garner et al., 2024, Gini of 0.3ish vs what I believe is 0.4ish for post-tax income) because poor people need to spend more of their income on things like food or rent, but there's no reason why the share of spendin by the top x% can't increase. In fact, as I understand it, it already has, according to [2] who themselves cite Moody, the top 20% accounted for 59% of spending in Q3 2025, which was a marked increase from the 40% in the BLS paper.
Now, the top 20% certainly aren't billionaires, but we also have to remember that the Luddites also benefited significantly from the automation of spinning before they themselves were replaced by automated weaving and subsequently suppressed by the state. There is no reason to think our current crop of labour aristocracy immune from the whims of capital when the time comes.
if a really powerful mafia got installed into your city, a very small violent group of people demanding people to pay to stay safe... how long before you start organizing? how long before they notice and do something about it?
Well, Elon thinks we'll all get a Universal High Income. Holding aside the irony of him thinking the future is socialism, that money has to come from somewhere. If all companies in the future depend on a handful of AI and Robotics companies, I guess that the money has to come from Elon. Seeing as the layoffs have started, what is he waiting for?
When they have enough robots, they won't need the rest of the system. I think Musk must have meant something like that when he said money won't matter.
Always exuded so much authority & confidence. What a legend.
But he start losing his hair at 17 and really struggled with it. A turning point came when a friend (a Hungarian judo black belt) and his wife wrestled him down and physically cut off his toupée with scissors.
His agent even had him do the Star Trek audition in a wig, but luckily the crew had better ideas.
Legal definitions can should change in order to keep up with society and technology.
reply